Jump to content

Template talk:Islamophobia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

WP:BLPGROUP

WP:BLPGROUP says “A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group”

WP:BLPCAT says “Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question … These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates ...” and might also be applicable.

See also the RfC mentioned in the previous section directly above.

In light of this I argue that Stop Islamization of America should be removed and I list the reasons that it is a small group that is virtually a single person here Talk:Stop_Islamization_of_America#Do_we_need_this_article.3F in the course of a overall review. I also argue that Jihad Watch should be removed in that it is the blog of a single person, Robert Spencer. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In these two edits, you removed David Horowitz Freedom Center, Stop Islamization of America, and Jihad Watch. Your reasoning is not sufficient for this kind of removal: you quote BLP but the sources which say that these groups are Islamophobic are very strong. It does not matter whether a few people or just one person is identified as Islamophobic if we have strong sources.
Thus I say that these listings must be returned to the template. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Let me start with Stop Islamization of America. There are many sources that say Stop Islamization of America crosses the line from criticism of jihadi to defamation of all Muslims and you provide us with an excellent sample. But there are also sources that accept the view that SIA’s criticism is focused, such as the New York Post [1] and Wall Street Journal. The RfC states that “high-quality sources must be unambiguous and there can be no serious dispute in classifying the group's activity in regards to the template, …” There seems to be a serious dispute. I believe we must error on the side of caution when branding someone a bigot. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The link you provide says nothing about how Stop Islamization of America is not Islamophobic. The op-ed piece talks crabwise around the issue without taking it on directly. Today's New York Post is tabloid crap, anyway, so I see nothing useful about that link. What are your other sources? Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
@Jason from nyc: Did you mean to include a source from the WSJ? I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm still looking for it. It's become tougher since my subscription has expired. Let me see if I have notes. Jason from nyc (talk)
There seems to be an article that I can't access anymore: "Call a Terrorist a 'Savage'? How Uncivilized" William McGurn, Wall Street Journal, October 1, 2012. Perhaps this is an op-ed piece. Hope this helps. Jason from nyc (talk)
In the mean time, let me also mention some others who might shed some light on how she's received in conservative circles. Mark Steyn of the National Review and well respected in conservative circles [2] has also defended Geller [3]. Again, not everyone is convinced that Geller is broad brushing all Muslims. Bush’s Ambassador, John Bolton, has written a forward to her book. She is undoubtedly quirky, flamboyant, abrasive, and a self-promoting attention seeker but she seems to have her defenders among respectable conservatives. There seems to be some disagreement among respectable sources; let’s hold back on Geller. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
To invoke BLPGROUP you need to show that there is a body of mainstream opinion that the group under consideration is not islamophobic (or racist or whatever). For that, you need good quality sources that go directly to the question. A source defending the legality of poster campaign on the New York subway, for example, is not very relevant. Presumably, unambiguously racist posters do not get approved for display on the New York subway in any case. Op-eds approving of an individual, rather that the group in question, also do not count. Being approved of in a conservative op-ed that praises your opposition to "Islamic imperialism" is, in any case, certainly not evidence that someone cannot be considered islamophobic. Formerip (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I question your assumptions. First of all, the burden of proof needs to fall on the editor who asserts that the person/organization in question is bigoted. If the preponderance of evidence comes from partisan sources BLP caution would suggest withholding the application of a critical label. In the case of Islamophobia, a neologism, the word is rejected by many in the conservative community (see our article on Islamophobia) and that leaves us with largely left-leaning sources and several moderates. These sources argue that Geller/SIOA is/are bigoted by applying the critique of “radical Islam” on all Muslims. Thus, those that counter with the argument that Geller/SIOA are focused on “radical Islam,” “Islamism” of “Islamic imperialism” are holding the contrary view that Geller/SIOA is not bigoted, that she is critical of jihadism, or something similar. Let's remember that it is not true that "the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question." While written in the context of religion, caution would have us apply it to other sensitive areas. Thus, with no broad-based agreement it would be appropriate to hold off adding her and her organization. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I raised this issue on September 2nd prior to the RfC. I wrote: "Without broad and near unanimous sources we are in danger of branding an individual or organization based on group of sources that turn out to be partisan. Broad across-the-board sourcing should be a reasonable criteria for making such a judgment. This problem seems to manifest itself in this template and to some degree Template:Racism topics. I've looked at templates on fascism and communism and there seems to be no problem because the individuals listed are open adherents of the movements covered in those templates. For example, the communism template doesn't include Alger Hiss whom some historical believe is a communist. Only open adherents are listed. In the Template:Racism topics we have a mix of those who admit to adhering to racialist theories or proudly boast of being a racial supremacist and cases where the individual/group denies such tendencies. Here almost all the individuals/groups deny being Islamophobic. Without broad across-the-board sourcing or an explicit admission we should withhold adding these names to the template." I think we should reach some consensus for "no serious dispute" when dealing with controversial living individuals. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You say we should be cautious about partisan sources but then you immediately side with what you call the "conservative community" in saying that Islamophobia is a disputed neologism. I call that hypocrisy. Islamophobia is not in dispute by mainstream sources; it has been the focus of a great many scholarly works, the scholars not disputing whether it exists but rather chewing on the various shades of definition, none of which are contradictory or mutually exclusive.
I would like to point out that no other editor here has expressed support for your position of the removal of three listings. The three listings should stay. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY Jason from nyc (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm just trying to prevent this issue from being a time sink for all concerned. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I think an important issue here is considering what constitutes high quality sources and a serious dispute based on the recent RfC consensus. From both sides, I think there is some difficulty in capturing the "high quality" with every source insofar as some sources may publish things that reflect an ideology in conflict with a neutral POV. Not sure this can be fully avoided when it comes to matters of social issues, though. That said, I think the NYP opinion piece is not what I would consider "high quality" based on the paper, the fact that the organization is not named, and that focus is not on the org but a specific event. The WSJ piece (which I have access to and can provide at request) is also not about the org, but about the response to the campaign and 1st Amendment rights, rather than broadly defending the organization's principles which are not at all discussed. Given that and the sources listed above, I do not think the sources provided constitue a serious dispute to classifying the organization as anti-Islamic in its scope. The dispute has much more to with the response by the public than about the organization itself. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for reading the opinion pieces in question as this is about the sources. Even if the WSJ isn't a full review of SIOA it disputes the interpretation of Geller's statement with the author being sympathetic to Geller's alleged intentions. The problem still remains that Geller has not “publicly self-identified” with Islamophobia and our article on her has views that are split on this issue--far more than the two I chose. Both sides try to infer, based on actions and statements (such as her ad campaign), whether she goes too far or not. And both sides are highly ideological, although I'd maintain still reliable sources. Are we to adjudicate this controversy? SIOA is barely more than an activist vehicle for Geller as I argue here. If this doesn’t fit the case of small organization and with a leader whose person and actions are controversial according to reliable sources, I can’t imagine what could. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
It does not matter whether Geller agrees with the observations made by most media sources. It's unfair to call scholars "ideological", scholars who are trying to be as thorough as possible, scholars whose work is reviewed by their not necessarily sympathetic peers. I think we are done here. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, please. Read the Geller article and you'll find many who believe she isn't critical of all Muslims but is focused on political Islam. At least respond to what I write. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Propose solution to speed the process without sacrificing fairness

Let me propose a mechanism to facilitate speedy resolution of listings without doing injustice to the subject and people involved. Both Binksternet (above) and I (in the the recent RfC) argue/complain that this process is time-consuming. While we disagree on what to include in the template we both praise Jethro’s closing. In his closing he wisely emphasizes that justice trumps expediency. And we must do justice to the subject at hand.

Rather than repeat debates that often have taken place on the article’s talk pages I suggest we defer to the consensus on those pages. The lead of the article should summarize the article including any prominent controversies. I propose we use the lead as a basis for inclusion in bias templates. If the lead says X is biased and there are no indications of opposition to that designation, inclusion is permissible. For small organizations both the organization’s lead and the lead of the key person should be unequivocal in the use of this label.

This should satisfy both demands for justice to the topic and efficiency. Comments, please. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That's just shifting the argument to different pages. What you should be proposing is that if there are lots of good quality sources saying an individual or a group is Islamophobic, then we place them in the template. In other words, the current crop is set—no need for any removals. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd welcome a discussion on where the primary vetting of sources should take place and how we can best reduce duplication of efforts. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Even more welcome would be you standing down so that other editors can get back to more important work. You have been getting no traction here; time to give it a rest. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree. There's a really simple principle at play hear, Jason. For good reason, we apply different standards in characterising people and organisations. But if a description of an organisation, even a negative one, is a fair reflection of descriptions in sources, then it is OK. If you don't like it, find other sources and start a discussion. Discussion about how we shouldn't describe racist organisations as racist because it might be a bit mean to the racists behind them is for other online encyclopaedias, really. Formerip (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Bodu Bala Sena

I have removed Bodu Bala Sena from this template as it does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion in this discussion about these templates. There is no reliable source for the claim, much less one that is unambiguous and high-quality. The group also appears to be quite small, and associated with the names of two individuals, so the BLP concerns associated with WP:BLPGROUP should apply to this organization. Finally, there has been no discussion that I have been able to find, to determine whether inclusion in this template is appropriate prior to adding the group to the template. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong. Please read the Bodu Bala Sena article which contains numerous reliable sources about the group's anti-Muslim activities. Here are some more:
  • BBC: " It is part of a growing wave of anti-Muslim activities in Sri Lanka carried out by new hardline Buddhist groups...the most prominent new hardline group, the Buddhist Strength Force (Bodu Bala Sena, BBS) have used coarse, derogatory language to describe Muslim imams and have told the Sinhalese majority not to rent property to Muslims."
  • The National: "But centuries of amicable coexistence are threatened by a new breed of increasingly violent, xenophobic, ultra-nationalist and anti-Muslim Buddhist monks headed by the Bodu Bala Sena."
  • The Nation: "The BBS...are certainly guilty of whipping anti-Muslim sentiment and ‘Muslimphobia’ among Buddhists."
The group isn't small. It has held rallies which attracted thousands, much more than, say, the EDL. The group is also closely associated with the country's ruling family. And finally, the group was added to this template many months before the Rfc.--obi2canibetalk contr 18:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem with that is, not one of those sources calls the organization "Islamophobic".
The most reliable source you show there, the BBC, is talking about ethnic tension in general, it is not only talking about this one group. The BBC mentions Sinhala Echo, a Sinhala Facebook page called "My Conscience", and the All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulama (ACJU), an organization of Muslim clerics that has been accused of fostering extremism. And it talks about crowds as well, that are not identified with a particular group. It's pretty clear there are ethnic tensions in the area. But if you just write what one side says about the other, as if it was a fact, that is not encyclopedic.
So it sounds like that is just your own opinion.
—Neotarf (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Does the source have to be talking only about BBS to be valid?--obi2canibetalk contr 18:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, pretty much. Everything should be verifiable. Some of those sources only mention the group in passing, and some are clearly editorializing and might not be considered neutral. They might work for an article about ethnic tensions in the area, if there is one. —Neotarf (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
There are other sources to look at.[4][5][6][7] // Liftarn (talk)

Organizations

IPT is on this template as a Islamophobic Organization. The article however does not say anything about the organization being a Islamophobic Organization. Essentially this template acts as a Rubber stamp and it is being used to make an unverfied statement. One of two actions needs to to place.

  • 1) This organazition is removed from this template.
  • 2) The article gets fixed to show however this organization is linked to Islamophobia.

On this articles talk page I'm going to recommend that the article is fixed or this template is removed from that article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It actually did say something about it until about 9 hours before you posted this here, but friend Atsme removed it from the article without either edit summary or discussion. It's perfectly well-sourced in the article that the organization is Islamophobic, and thus it should stay in this template.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

B.R.D. then.[[User:Serialjoepsycho|Serialjoepsycho]] (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph he threw on the page to see if it would stick. The information is incorrect, and POV. User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah keeps reverting my edits. I'm not going to be suckered into a 3R situation because of his harassment. Atsme (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Investigative Project on Terrorism RFC

I just started a RFC at Investigative Project on Terrorism to ask whether this templates usage there violates NPOV. In addition I asked if it was found that it was a violation of NPOV should that article be delisted from this template as well?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Counterjihad template

The controversy surrounding this specific and indeed contentious template has been so persistent now that I feel that the best measure to counterbalance it is by creating a counterjihad template which will then be used wherever the Islamophobia template is used. Either as a substitute or alongside it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

To do so would violate multiple core Wikipedia principles. Forget it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Why would it violate WP:NPOV anymore than the neologism and polemical term Islamophobia? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
As you are fully aware, 'Islamophobia' is a commonly used term in both the mainstream media and in academia. 'Counterjihad' on the other hand is nothing but a fringe political current. There is really nothing more that needs to be said... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Btw could you stop edit-warring over the template without even bothering to give reasons? Could help strengthen your credibility. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
ping AndyTheGrump - I have to agree with Gun Powder Ma on this one; either WP:TERRORIST means something and ought to be enforced, or it ought to be ignored. The "islamophobia template" is one case in which WP:TERRORIST is being flouted in order to let a few political activists hijack wikipedia for their purposes.
I would whole-heartedly support a broader template attacking bigotry in general here. That would at once remove the problem with use of the hackneyed label "islamophobia" and cause us to focus on the real issue, neutral point of view. loupgarous (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
What happens when the creating editor whose article is slated to receive such a template doesn't want an ugly template on the article he/she created? I had a similar experience regarding a biology subject, and the template I created was deleted. I don't see how any editor can force inclusion of a template on an article, especially if it is ugly, and distracts from the aesthetics and overall appearance of the article. How many FAs have such templates? Does anyone know? Atsme☯Consult 21:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a difficult question. Guidance seems to favor seeking consensus, but we both know people with whom consensus is impossible. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a very good mechanism for whistling in administrators to help editors reach consensus or rule on arbitrary placement of templates. I've already gone on record here as saying that the "islamophobia template" violates WP:TERRORIST both in its mere existence, and in its usual application to marginalize articles with which the template wielder disagrees.
Unless and until Wikipedia administrators revisit the "islamophobia template" with a view of whether it is a large, ugly and superfluous substitute for balanced discussion of allegations of bigotry, Wikipedia's sort of doing the "cognitive dissonance" thing - saying we ought to do one thing, but failing to enforce it in one specific case.
I think it's time for another Request for Consensus on this issue, now that more editors are beginning to really pay attention to the issues you and I have raised.
After that, arbitration may be necessary to resolve the issue - since several attempts at reaching a consensus have already occurred, and at least one other editor seems to have declared a vendetta of sorts on you.loupgarous (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

One Drop Rule for Inclusion in Template?

Is there a one drop rule for the inclusion in the template? If so, please provide the relevant guideline saying so. While the German mainstream media indeed widely regards PI as Islamophobic, particularly left and far left newspapers, parts of the English-language conservative media which have reported on PI emphatically disagree with this label, rather qualifying them as conservative. More importantly, the German governement has officially designated them to be "Islam-critical" in a number of parliamentary inquiries despite political pressure from SPD and The Left. This view has been long supported by the federal domestic intelligence whose very business is to identify and monitor racially or religiously motivated hate inciting news outlets.

So, opinions are certainly divided, and on balance there is not enough evidence to label PI WP officially as "Islamophobic", particularly considering how controversial the template itself has been viewed in the WP community. As of now, the sum of the evidence only would warrant an inclusion into a to be created template named and based on Criticism of Islamism, but not one based on Islamophobia. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be wary of Wikipedia articles using official government classifications regarding the ideology of blogs as reliable sources, regardless of who they were classifying. Wikipedia is not written by German federal domestic intelligence agencies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The German government and domestic intelligence service is as WP:reliable a source as any, like it or not. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
As Politically Incorrect (blog) self-identifies as islamophobes it's rather irrelevant. // Liftarn (talk)
Those mugs and T-Shirts have no bearing whatsoever on the template. Besides, as Herne sufficiently makes clear he means with phobia fear of Islam(ism) and not prejudice or hatred in the sense of Islamophobia. And this view is shared by the government and the intelligence service, because otherwise they would have been monitored for this very reason. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Your assertions regarding the German intelligence services appear to be original research. Can you cite them for an assertion that the blog is not Islamophobic? Were they even asked to determine this? The simple fact is that it has been widely described as such, and a single non-statement by a source that may never have been asked to comment on the issue cannot justify ignoring such sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
You confuse the WP:burden of evidence. Your assertions regarding the German intelligence services appear to be original research. You include PI in the template, you provide the evidence that the evaluation of government and intelligence service, as well as parts of the conservative media, are to be discounted. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you please provide a source for your assertion that German intelligence services have stated that PI is not Islamophobic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
As GunPowderMa said there are left-wing and far-left sources that describe the blog as 'islamophobic' (whatever that means), whilst there are independent and conservative media that do not use that term. We should strictly avoid being partial and always mention, who claims what. Verfassungsschutz is doubtlessly a good source for seeing what the general consensus is (its purpose is to reflect the consensus in the research).Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you please provide a source for your assertion that German intelligence services have stated that PI is not Islamophobic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Here and here: the government and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution position it in the "Islam-critical spectrum". The point is if the German authorities were regarding PI as Islamophobic in the sense of the WP article and the template, that is fostering hatred and prejudice against Muslims, they would be obliged to observe it because Volksverhetzung ("incitement of popular hatred") is a criminal act in Germany. The fact that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution does not monitor it, is therefore proof that they don't view PI as Islamophobic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. And see [8] - maybe the decision not to monitor it was taken for political reasons? Or maybe they do monitor it but not officially? Who knows? The fact that they don't monitor it officially is irrelevant here. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Again: the Federal Office evaluates PI as "Islam-critical". Islam-critical is not islamophobic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
That is a ridiculous statement to make, and pure WP:OR. You have produced no evidence to suggest that they were ever asked to comment on whether PI could be described as Islamophobic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, please address the issue: the Federal Office evaluates PI as "Islam-critical" (Here and here) and Islam-critical is not islamophobic. Wikipedia has two different articles on this, so why do you keep on adding the template of Islamophobia to an organization which reliable sources evaluate as Criticism of Islam? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:OR is WP:OR no matter how many times you repeat it. Frankly I find your attempt to suggest that PI isn't Islamophobic when they have self-identified as such [9] rather ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
So could you start to address the collected evidence, please? If you feel that some slogan on a mug in webstore constitutes 1. a WP:reliable source and 2. trumps all other sources however reliable they are, then take it to the reliable source noticeboard because it is not for more than one reason. What you fail to acknowledge is that the PI article has been recently expanded by new sources which make the previous designation, to which I did not strongly object, make the subject of a reevaluation with these new sources taking a different view from parts of the German media. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Andy is correct that your views about the Federal Office are OR. And clearly with two of us disagreeing with you you don't have a consensus. Then there's [10] and various news sources such as [11]. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the inclusion: the view of the Verfassungsschutz is definitely more important than the qualification used by a couple of newspapers. No consensus for including. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Nobody has cited the Verfassungsschutz's view - instead we have WP:OR, based on the fact that they appear not to have said something about something they may very well not have been asked to comment on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Andy's right. Someone or something can be BOTH "critical of Islam" AND "Islamophobic". Even a cursory search brings up a ton of sources which call it "Islamophobic". And if Liftarn is right that they self identify as "Islamophobic"... why are we having this discussion exactly?
Gun Powder Ma's argument boils down to saying "A calls X Y, there fore X is not Z". Of course that's nonsense and a logical fallacy.Volunteer Marek 18:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to throw this out: we have a religion on the behalf of which Iraq was invaded, its citizens murdered, beheaded, tortured, raped and placed in effective tyranny. While blanket mistreatment of Muslims per se isn't anything a reasonable person wants to see, the US Federal government is even as we speak dropping bombs on the people who are trying to establish an Islamic Caliphate in Iraq and the Levant (Syria, Lebanon and Israel). When do we stop pretending that a faith that can inspire and bless such behavior isn't scary? "Islamophobia," while President Obama denies it, is in fact a reasonable view. Unless all Muslims outside ISIS denounce this sort of behavior (and international polls indicate a third of Muslims endorse it), Islamophobia makes sense. loupgarous (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Fear of Islam does exist, and it is justified considering recent events, but that concept is an argument in favor of it. We also know racism and anti-Semitism exist. As editors the problems arise when citing reliable sources because reliability of a source is also subjective. Supporters of Islam will support POVs that present Islam in a good light. The CAP report is a classic example. Anyone, including organizations who have joined the war against radical Islam and terrorism is automatically labeled Islamophobic, but we're not seeing such discernment on articles about Muslim groups who oppose or do not condone radicalism because it is incorrectly assumed moderate followers of Islam cannot possibly be Islamophobic. Therefore, use of the term and template is clearly discriminatory, and a violation of WP:NPOV. We all know discrimination exists on both sides, but who are we as editors to make that determination? We are then subjected to relying on high-quality sources, but that just takes us in full circle because what one group might consider high-quality, another group considers unacceptable. Wikipedia slants left so trying to get some of these issues resolved is an issue in itself. You might want to read the following discussion because it brings up a lot of the points brought here. The problem is perpetuated because editors are being allowed to partake in "labeling". Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_110 Atsme☯Consult 14:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Garbage-pedia

Please stop spreading garbage like this and stop calling various individuals and organizations silly names such as "islamophobic". I am sure it is fun writing nonsens on a social media like this, but I am just so tired of seeing the internet being used as a trash can, by awful sites like Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.20.149 (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I realize that it will be hard or impossible to argue neutrality here, since Wikipedia has a history of a very strong bias towards using the jargon of political correctness and cultural relativism as if it was objective, while clamping down on political terminology from the opposite camp. Our mission is, of course, not to use any propaganda term in Wikipedia's voice itself. But my experience is that an obvious propaganda term like "Islamophobia" (it never pretended to be anything else, and that's fair enough outside of a project dedicated to Neutrality) will be defended above neutral descriptions of the phenomenon. On the other hand, I was given an extremely hard time to even be allowed to discuss immigrant criminality, a perfectly objective and neutral term for a political topic, because the mere exercise of looking at the distribution of nationalities in statistics (done by first rate secondary sources) must be prevented because it somehow implies "racism". Since strong-armed to the hyper-neutral immigration and crime even though no, the two concepts are not looked at in splendid isolation, the topic is concerned to what extent and why the people who migrate end up with higher crime rates. There are many and complex reasons, but this is still what the article is discussing.

This is pathetic, and everyone here knows it is, but many people will still prefer to go with whatever in-group they feel allegiance to as long as they feel they have numerical superiority instead of gritting their teeth and opting to be neutral no matter what (as in "writing for the enemy").

Long story short, WP:N, get rid of the term "Islamophobia" used in Wikipedia's voice just like we avoid any other political neologism anywhere except in attributed quotes. It's as simple as that, and the principle cuts in every political way. Test yourself in this way: if you think that a term like "Islamophobia" can be used in Wikipedia's voice, you must be positively furious at the move of immigrant criminality to some made-up "less offensive" title. If you aren't, that's a sure sign that you are not editing neutrally but try to tilt the pedia towards your political agenda. (I know, of course your political preference is the only correct one, or you wouldn't have chosen it, but you will still be forced to recognize that this doesn't matter when you edit Wikipedia) --dab (𒁳) 15:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Apart from airing some conspiracy theories do you have a point? The term islamophobia is widely used in academia as have been proven over and over again. The question is do you want to change Template:Antisemitism so it says Criticism of Judaism and "Antisemitism". No? Double standards? // Liftarn (talk)

Biased title

This is Wikipedia, Liftarn. Wikipedia is neutral, and the people that you're calling this buzzword have reasons as to why they believe that, and unlike the Antisemites, they can back it up with statistics and reasons.
The "widely used in academia"- remember, in America, there are collegiate institutions outside of the Mason-Dixon line that have pockets of Marxism and even ex-felons claiming to be from radial leftists (e.g. Weather Underground) -argument is a fallacy because you have not cited your sources. You know what else was once widely used in academia? The dunce hat. I'm not calling you a dunce, I'm trying to say that academia isn't a perfect gague of terminology, like the dictionary is.
This isn't a series on "Islamic phobia", it's a series on the anti-Islam movement. Wouldn't "Islamicphobia" cover the actual and direct persecution of Muslims, such as grafitti on mosques, ham on their doorstep, and slurs?
If anything, you could call this "Part of a series on Anti-Islamization" or "anti-Shariah" or "Islamic opposition", so on and so on, etc. etc. . Personally, I think the neutral "institutional criticism of Islam" or something is much more fair to Islam's opponents. -and don't compare this with Antisemitism. The last time I checked, Jews- in the modern day -didn't murder soldiers in the streets (UK), "honor-kill" their families (Arabic nations), fly planes into buildings (USA), persecute and arson minorities and their properties (Egypt), and form vigilante squads that go after people that are "too Western", as in Iran or Turkey.
While you should include a link (examples: see also, miscellaneous, related topics) to Islamic phobia and Persecution of Muslims to a template covering the anti-Islamization movements, because they can spill into that, you should call organized opposition to Islam "Islamic phobia", unless you are willing to call the various anti-Christian leagues (e.g. Freedom From Religion) as "Christ-phobia".
--99.157.108.186 (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Liftarn is a troll. I am replying for the benefit of interested third parties.

The term islamophobia is widely used in academia as have been proven over and over again. The question is do you want to change Template:Antisemitism so it says Criticism of Judaism and "Antisemitism". No? Double standards?

the first claim is untrue. "Islamophobia" has been discussed in academia, because it is a problematic ideological term that cropped up in popular discourse over the last decade. No academic within their right mind would use it as if it was an objective descriptor. "as have been proven over and over again" doesn't even make any sense in English, so I'm not going to try and reply to it. Pretending that the term "Islamophobia" is on a par with "Antisemitism" is so plainly disingenious that I also do not think it merits a reply. There is, of course, a related debate on "criticism of Zionism/Israel" vs. "Antisemitism", and people debating in bad faith will often try to depict one as the other, but at least we have about 100 years of academic literature on the nature of Antisemitism, so this is a discussion that can actually be had.

The actual "double standards" on Wikipedia are the attempts to take one concept backed with decades and decades of academic literature, and a cranky neologism, and then pretend or demand that they should be treated on a par. see WP:RANDY. --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

So the Islamophobia Studies Journal is what, not academics using the term as an objective descriptor? And the more than a dozen other academic sources brought up at Talk:Islamophobia/Archive_14#Proposal_to_rename_article_to_.22Anti-Islamic_sentiment.22 is what exactly? Finally, an admin shouldnt be opening their comments with a personal attack. nableezy - 15:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, you dont get to force through changes that were rejected in the past. You want to change the template get consensus to do so. Kind of simple. nableezy - 07:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
These edits were specifically rejected in an RFC, this is the title of the template and you cannot ignore it. No discussion coming from either of you either. nableezy - 13:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
To expand on that, there was an RFC to rename this template to "Anti-Islamic sentiment" here, concurrent with the same proposal at the article talk. That failed to gain consensus at either place. You cannot now just ram through those changes as though that discussion never happened, you have an obligation to gain consensus for that change. If you dont believe the term is used by mainstream academics then I really cant help you, the evidence provided at Talk:Islamophobia/Archive_14#Proposal_to_rename_article_to_.22Anti-Islamic_sentiment.22 pretty thoroughly debunked that claim, but if you would rather continue making patently, and proven, untrue statements well then I guess thats your choice. That does not however mean you control the template, your changes were discussed and rejected. nableezy - 13:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that undue fear of and hostility toward Islam and its adherents exists to anyone who cruises the blogosphere. On the other hand, the term "islamophobia" has been badly abused to attempt to marginalize fair comment on some adherents of Islam and their acts (ISIS, et cetera, the President's absurd claim that "ISIS is not Islamic" to the contrary. They are to Islam what the radical white power movement is to Christianity, and the government of Myanmar is to Buddhism). Just on that basis, "islamophobia" is almost the prototype pejorative label addressed in WP:TERRORIST.

We should no more have an "islamophobia" banner or template than a "terrorist" banner or template. loupgarous (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. "Islamophobia" is a rhetorical term to imply that criticism of Islam is inherently irrational. Officialising this rhetoric as a template grossly contravenes NPOV. Stringybark (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Investigative Project on Terrorism

A question was asked at BLPN. Was this templates placement in the IPT article a BLP violation? This was just closed Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism but it has not been archived yet. The close says yes there is a consensus that this is a BLP violation. The question of if Investigative Project on Terrorism inclusion on this template presents a BLP violation was asked. There was no consensus on this matter. The few comments on it suggest that it is not. However the situations do not actually differ. The inclusion of IPT here suggests that this is an Islamophobic organization just the same as the inclusion of the template on that page would. That is the reason for my removal of IPT from this template.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

2015-03 Central African Republic

Could Anti-balaka or Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration be added in the template, under Specific incidents section? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Disputed/controversial entries

The website Document.no should be removed from this navigation box, since as one can see from the article, numerous mainstream commentators outright reject the label for this particular site (even the largest left-wing anti-racist organisation effectively say it's only "borderline"), citing it as a legitimate participant in the political debate, and noting its broader focus and content. Norwegian news outlets generally refer to it simply as "Islam-critical". User2534 (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You misrepresent what the sources say, they actually say "the site lie close to the Islamophobia and publish Islamophobic texts" so it's far from a rejection. // Liftarn (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Read my comment and the article intro summary again until you actually understand what it says. I never wrote that particular organisation said it "rejected" anything, I wrote that it considered it "borderline" (for summary in the article intro) which is effectively synonymous with the quote (which is longer by the way, and concludes with "but to label the website as far-right or one-sidedly Islamophobic would however be wrong."). But then, perhaps more importantly, there are several other commentators who more outright reject the label altogether. User2534 (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, there are always those that wants to whitewash islamophobia. No wonder there. // Liftarn (talk)

Template inappropriate for organizations and biographies

The word islamophobia is a non-neutral and politically charged word that is usually considered a insult. See the following definition, "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." http://crg.berkeley.edu/content/islamophobia/defining-islamophobia Due to this, I recommend against using this template on biographies of individuals and organizations unless the name of the template is changed to something more neutral like "Discussion of Islam." This template is the equivalent of using weasel words because it is a POV label without citing the source. Even if an article cites the author who made the claim of Islamophobia this template is still problematic because another author may claim the individual or organization is a neutral expert of Islam, so should we also create and add a template called "Experts on Islam?" The Wikipedia solution to this is to stay neutral and change the name of the template or stop using it on people and organizations. See. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. I include organizations as well because small organizations are so tied to a few individuals they cannot be separated from an individual's biography. Waters.Justin (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Very few Islamophobes are 'experts on Islam'. As for whether a specific organisation should be described as Islamophobic, that would clearly depend on what reliable sources have to say on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The template could also be changed to "Fear of Islam" to be less POV. Who is an expert and who is an Islamophobe is incredibly politicized. The expert on Fox News[12] is the Islamophobe on the Huffington Post.[13]. Waters.Justin (talk)

Please compare Template:Antisemitism (for instance the section "Antisemitism on the Web") that also lists organisations. // Liftarn (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The "Antisemitism on the Web" section only list two organizations, and there probably is not a single source that disputes they are antisemitic. Applying that same standard to the islamophobia template, organizations should only be added sparingly and only if there is no dispute over the label. Waters.Justin (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You could probably find some that say they are only "critical of Judaism" or "not anti-Semitic all the time". // Liftarn (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move

The current name is POV and misleading. I think this template should be renamed as "criticism of Islam". --125.34.139.112 (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

We have been over this many, many, many times before and the term used is islamophobia. Having it as "criticism of Islam" would be misleading as well as it's about racism against people of Muslim origin rather than anything with the religion itself. // Liftarn (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Trollhättan school attack

Should this attack really be included in this template? The attacker's motive was racism, not necessarily just islamophobia. The attack happened at a school and not in a mosque. His prime targets were immigrants regardless of their religious affiliations. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shellwood: I say remove it. It was a tragedy, but seems to more "xenophobia" than "Islamophobia" and the list of incidents in the template is too long anyway. We already have an entire article dedicated to Islamophobic incidents. I'd also say to remove 2009–10 Malmö shootings since it was also more "xenophobia" than "Islamophobia." Kamalthebest (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Then shall we agree to remove this? Shellwood (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Shellwood: Yes, I have removed them along with some other incidents. See the section below for explanation. Kamalthebest (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Explanation of recent removals

Hello, everyone. I recently removed some of the incidents listed under "specific incidents" because the list was getting incredibly long. Here is my justification for removing the following:

  • Bosphorus serial murders - The targets for these murders were mostly Muslim, but the cause for targeting the neo-Nazis targeted the victims due to anti-immigrant and racial hatred, not so much Islamophobia.
These attacks were targeted against Turkish Muslims. They even sent a letter to the Islamic centre in Hamburg after one of their attacks. You said racial hatred is often mixed with Islamophobia if all the members of a race such as Rohingya are Muslims (such is the case in Myanmar). This is also the case here. In Germany, anti-Turkism and islamophobia go together, because Turks are the largest Muslim group in Germany.
Again, all targeted were Turksish Muslims. You said racial hatred is often mixed with Islamophobia if all the members of a race such as Rohingya are Muslims (such is the case in Myanmar). This is also the case here. In Germany, anti-Turkism and islamophobia go together, because Turks are the largest Muslim group in Germany. You cannot separate Islamophobia and racial hatred against Turks in Germany.
  • Trollhättan school attack - Swedish police stated that the motive behind the attack had "racist motives" and that it was a "hate crime," less hatred of Muslims and Islam.

All of these incidents are listed on the Islamophobic incidents page, but I think we should save the sidebar for blatant and clear Islamophobic attacks like the Quebec City mosque shooting and the Bosnian Genocide. Thanks. Kamalthebest (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: Good job! Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

add Reclaim Australia

Australia has a noteworthy number of far right anti-islam hate groups, would it be reasonable to add some of them to the list? these four in particular:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaim_Australia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Society_of_Australia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Blue_Crew - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Patriots_Front

Any thoughts? Bacondrum (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Four extra Australian organisations might be undue weight on the template - that would bring the number of Australian groups to five out of 18. ([[Australian Defence League is already listed.) With the Q Society it seems inappropriate, and the template there should be removed - the only Islamophobia mentioned in the article is from a guest speaker a a meeting. True Blue Crew is called "anti-Islam" in the article, but there is no reference to it being "Islamophobic". Disclosure: I came here after discussions with User:Bacondrum at Talk:Reclaim_Australia. StAnselm (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

User:StAnselm If they are Islamophobic then they are Islamophobic, how many of them there are is irrelevant. How is being Anti-Islam any different to being Islamophobic? To be honest I don't trust your intentions, not one little bit. I came here to ask pretty much anyone but you Saint, not to be hounded by your determined efforts to present the far-right in a positive light. I'm sure others here can make their own observations and judgements without you trying to manipulate the presentation of anti-Islam groups. Bacondrum (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Q-Society is Islamophobic in the extreme: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/inside-the-far-right-q-society-explosive-dinner-where-muslims-are-fair-game-20170210-gu9xo8.html You can't be serious "it seems inappropriate". Bacondrum (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

add Reclaim Australia

So, I just want to ask again.

Australia has a noteworthy number of far right anti-islam hate groups, would it be reasonable to add some of them to the list? these four in particular:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaim_Australia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Society_of_Australia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Blue_Crew - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Patriots_Front

Any thoughts?@Meticulo:@Darouet:@Moxy:@Liftarn:@Benjamil:@BDD: Bacondrum (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

​plus Added. It's been a couple of years, but I've just added Reclaim Australia. The other three were already in the template. — Newslinger talk 06:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Bacondrum (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Islamophobia/Archive_3&oldid=1144362274"